2004 Pros and Cons and Attorney General Explanations

2004 Ballot Question Pamphlet - Constitutional Amendment A

Title: An amendment to Article V, section 7 of
the South Dakota Constitution, providing for the merit selection of circuit
court judges.

Attorney
General Explanation

Under the Constitution,
circuit court judges are elected on a non-political ballot for eight year
terms. The Governor appoints judges to fill vacancies for the balance of
unexpired terms. Nominees for vacancies are selected by the judicial
qualifications commission.

Amendment A would change the Constitution
by establishing an appointment and retention election procedure. New judges
would be appointed by the Governor from nominees selected by the judicial
qualifications commission. Judges would be subject to a retention election
on a non-political ballot three years after appointment, and every eight
years after that, by the voters of the circuit the judge represents.

A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.

A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as
it is.

Pro -- Constitutional Amendment A

There is a
critical difference between the work of a judge and the work of
other public officials. It is the business of legislators and
executives to be advocates on issues and promote agendas. It is
the business of judges to be neutral and fair in applying the
law. The duty of a judge is to provide those appearing before
him or her, an even-handed, unbiased and impartial forum for the
resolution of their disputes.

In the past
South Dakota has had judicial election laws
to minimize the influence of money and special interest groups
on judicial elections. Recent Federal Court decisions have
rendered many of these laws unconstitutional. As a result,
South Dakota’s judicial election system is broken. Merit
selection as proposed in this amendment creates an election
method where merit and qualifications, not money and special
interest groups, will determine who will be South Dakota’s
judges. Money and special interest groups could have a
significant, detrimental impact on the independent judiciary
potentially resulting in activist judges with specific agendas.

This
amendment will also insure that all circuit judges will be
determined to be qualified by the Judicial Qualification
Commission.

Constitutional Amendment A received broad bi-partisan support in
the 2003 South Dakota legislature.

Merit
selection is presently used in selecting Supreme Court Justices
in South Dakota. This system for Supreme Court Justices was
previously adopted by the voters of South Dakota in 1980 and has
served the state well.

1.
Amendment A strips away our constitutional right to vote for the
candidates of our choice, and gives control to an appointed

Currently, voters are allowed to select our judges through the
ballot box. Lawyers must run for the office of circuit court
judge, and they must campaign. They must convince us they are
the best candidate and ask for our vote. We voters get to know
these candidates, and currently we elect who will preside over
the courts in our towns and cities. We decide who will make the
decisions that may or may not affect our children, our families,
or our businesses. Amendment A destroys this election process.

Amendment A takes away our
choice of candidates.

Currently, any number of lawyers can run for a circuit court
Judge position. We have a choice of candidates. If Amendment A
is passed, lawyers will apply to a commission who will choose
the candidates. Then the Governor decides who will be our
judges. Could the governor pick a candidate that would be a
political pay off? Absolutely! We only need to look at the
bickering and political infighting at the federal level
concerning judges appointments. Some
judicial appointments have been held up for years because of
partisan politics.

We the
voters will have No input, No chance to be involved to decide
who will be our circuit court judges. We will only be allowed a
retention vote every 8 years to decide whether we want that
judge to stay.

I urge
you to VOTE NO ON AMENDMENT A. Preserve your Constitutional
right to Vote for your Circuit Court Judges.

2004 Ballot Question Pamphlet - Constitutional Amendment B

Title: An amendment to Article VIII, section 20
of the South Dakota Constitution to authorize the provision of certain
services to all children of school age.

Attorney
General Explanation

The Constitution generally
prohibits the Legislature from giving state money or property to sectarian
schools. However, the Constitution allows the Legislature to authorize the
loan of nonsectarian textbooks to children of school age, including those
attending sectarian schools.

Amendment B, if adopted, would change the
Constitution to also allow the Legislature to authorize participation in
food and transportation services for children of school age, including those
attending sectarian schools.

A vote “Yes” will change the Constitution.

A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as
it is.

Pro -- Constitutional Amendment B

It was a sad
day last year when the South Dakota children attending Christian
schools were not allowed to ride the buses to school. Kicking
those kids off the bus ran contrary to decades of cooperation in
South Dakota between public and Christian schools. This
unbelievable policy of letting the school bus stop at farms to
pick up the high school and junior high children going to public
school, but refusing a ride for their brothers and sisters
attending elementary school, was due to an antiquated provision
in the South Dakota Constitution called the “Blaine Amendment.”

The South
Dakota Legislature, without a dissenting vote, immediately
passed legislation to get the kids back on the buses.
Unfortunately, there are still school districts afraid that the
“Blaine Amendment” prohibits this age-old cooperation between
schools. Amendment B fixes the problem. It does not cost the
taxpayers a cent. It allows the Legislature to authorize the
public and Christian school cooperation we have known
historically in South Dakota. Amendment B was co-sponsored by
98 of your 105 legislators.
The "food
service" language is included because the Yankton public schools
were paid by the Catholic grade school to fix meals for their
children. The administration felt that the “Blaine Amendment”
even prohibited that level of cooperation.

The “Blaine
Amendment” was forced upon South Dakota at the time of statehood
by the Congress. It was a product of the documented religious
bigotry of the 1880's. South Dakota didn't have a chance to do
it right then, if we wanted to become a state. But now voters
have an opportunity to make a technical amendment to our State
Constitution and allow our historical cooperation, between
public and Christian schools, to continue for the benefit of all
of our children.

One of the
fundamental commitments of the State of South Dakota is the
establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform system of
public education. Since the beginning of statehood, the state
has worked to accomplish this basic goal of our representative
democracy even though money is always scarce. Strong public
schools have been a staple of a strong South Dakota.

Passage of
Amendment B would allow the expenditure of public school money
for privately schooled students. The amendment allows students
not enrolled in public schools to be provided transportation and
food service at public expense. Amendment B is vague and does
not limit the amount of money that would be siphoned from public
schools. The severity of the impact on already financially
strapped school districts cannot be fully measured and would
likely result in unintended consequences.
Why Amendment
B is not good for South Dakota:

It may conflict with
other portions of the SD Constitution.

More public school
districts will be pressed to opt out of the property tax limits
if the amendment passes. Dozens of districts have already done
so.

When money is
diverted from public schools to private students, and the public
does not support additional taxes, more student programs will
need to be cut.

Passage of Amendment
B could be a step toward proposals taking many more resources
from public schools for private purposes.

The diversion of
money from public schools will erode the state’s constitutional
commitment to public education.

South Dakota
public schools consistently rank high on national measurements
of student success. These schools struggle more and more to
maintain this success due to very limited resources and new
mandates placed upon them. Please vote no on Amendment B since
it further limits public school resources.

Submitted
by: Donna DeKraai, 411 East Capitol
Ave, Pierre, SD 57501. Donna DeKraai
is the President of the South Dakota Education Association.

2004 Ballot Question Pamphlet - Initiated Measure I

Compiled by the Office of Secretary of State Chris Nelson

Initiated Measure I

Title: An act to exempt food from sales and use
taxes.

Attorney
General Explanation

The state collects a sales
and use tax on the sale of food. Many cities and towns also collect a
municipal sales and use tax on the sale of food.

Initiated Measure 1, if adopted, would
exempt food from state and municipal sales and use taxes, and eliminate this
source of revenue.

A vote “Yes” will change state law.

A vote “No” will leave state law as it is.

Pro – Initiated Measure I

Food is one of
life's basic needs and one of South Dakota's most important
products. Taxing life's necessities is unjust. A YES vote on this measure exempts food purchases from state and city
sales tax beginning July 1, 2005. Pop, candy, restaurant meals,
and other merchandise purchases will continue to be taxed.

At 4% for the state, and 2% for most cities, the food tax is the
equivalent of three weeks worth of food each and every year (6%
x 52 weeks). For many low-income people, this is a significant
loss. A family spending $500 per month on groceries currently
pays $360 in food tax every year. A YES vote benefits all South Dakotans--no card required.

Initiative 1 is modest and affordable. When analysts consider
the state's $5 million refund program, $3 million in taxes from
pop and candy, and $2 million in revenues from the tax cut's
economic stimulus, repeal requires about $32 million annually.
This amounts to 1.1% of the state's entire budget or 3.3% of the
General Fund.

Reserves and revenues are available. The state holds fund
balances exceeding $1.3 billion. The National Conference
of State Legislatures ranks South Dakota #1 based on the
relative size of our budget surplus. The budget reserve and
property tax reduction funds alone have combined balances of
$137.7 million. Sales tax revenues continue to grow faster than
expected. We can afford to end the food tax with no
adverse consequences on state programs and services.

Municipalities need not lose any funding from this repeal. The
legislature can allow cities modest adjustments in non-food tax
rates to maintain full city revenue.

A repeal of the
sales tax on food will eliminate $62 million in state, local and
tribal funds and many more millions in matching federal funds so
there will be less money available for needed services to South
Dakotans every year.

Who Gets
Less Money? Cities
lose $20 million. That means less money to repair streets,
maintain water systems, and operate city services. Or, it could
cause increases in your local property taxes.

The state and
tribes lose $42 million. That will cause existing taxes to
increase, new taxes imposed, or cuts made to schools,
medical services for poor children,
the elderly, and other services.

Does the State Have
Funds to Pay for a Repeal? No. It doesn’t.

The people have
created three trust funds that total $656.7 million.
Interest from those trusts provide
$30 million in annual funding for education, scholarships, and
health care. With 72% approval in 2001, voters showed they
didn’t want the principal spent.

Other accounts total
$560.4 million. These monies are restricted to retiring bonds,
providing clean water, and maintaining/repairing highways. They
cannot be diverted.

That leaves $109.9
million for state emergencies and property tax reduction. It
could be used.

But, if used, that
money would be gone in two years! Then, we will be forced into
raising current taxes,
creating new taxes, or cutting funding for schools,
medical services for poor children,
the elderly, and other services.

What About Helping
We have a new law
that gives poor people a refund on their food sales taxes.

Please do not vote
to create a funding crisis by repealing the sales tax on food
and creating uncertainty for every taxpayer worried about new
taxes and every vulnerable person dependent on government for
needed help.